'HC judges must be evaluated,' says SC: 'We don't want to behave like school principals for High Court judges'

Digital

On September 22 The Supreme Court said, that some High Court judges are completing their work properly. The performance of HC judges should be evaluated.

"We do not want to behave like school principals for High Court judges, but it is necessary that every judge should have their own management system so that files do not pile up on their desk." Justice Suryakant and Justice N Kotiswar Singh's bench said.

Some judges work day and night and are handling cases excellently, but there are some judges who are unable to do their work for some reason. Whether the reasons are good or bad, we don't know, but this situation is concerning, the bench said.

A previous judgment of SC states if a court only pronounces the operative part of a judgment, it must provide the reasoning within 5 days. Until the Supreme Court changes this time limit, High Courts must obey the order.

August 22:

SC's remarks these 2 cases also in discussion

Cannot redeem mortgaged property after auction notice The SC, said that if an auction notice for a property has been declared, the debtor cannot reclaim that property. The court explained that after the bank or financial institution issues the auction certificate, the buyer's rights become non-reversible. This decision was given under Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act. Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan's bench said that in 2016 amendment to this section will also apply to cases where loans were taken earlier but defaulted after September 1, 2016. This means that if the debtor did not pay on time and the auction notice was issued, they will lose their right to the property.

SC says, 'Defamation should be removed from category of crime' The SC said that the time has come to remove defamation from the category of crime. Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma bench was hearing a defamation case filed in 2016 by former JNU professor Amita Singh against a media organization. The media organization's report claimed that Professor Amita Singh had prepared a document which described JNU as a centre of obscene activities and terrorism. Amita Singh claimed that the reporter and editor published this news without verifying its facts, which damaged her reputation. During the hearing, on Justice Sundresh's order, senior advocate Kapil Sibal agreed with the court, saying that Rahul Gandhi's case is also under consideration in the same way. After this, the Supreme Court sent a notice to Professor Amita Singh.